Patagucci to Aussie wholesale partners: reduce your carbon footprint or no discount for you! They literally said that.

[Rich_Ease_3051]

Whatever the F "reducing carbon emissions" for "wholesalers" means.

Green threat: Patagonia to axe discount unless Australian wholesalers reduce footprint

Discounts will now only be offered by the sustainable clothes maker to wholesalers who take steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their operations, or who make donations to grass-roots environmental groups.

www.smh.com.au

Wholesalers who cannot reduce carbon emissions can also choose to donate to grass-roots environmental groups (probably under https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/ scheme).

This sounds like a stealth plan to be cut off by retail channels by getting them pissed off at Patagucci. Once they are boycotted by wholesalers and their retail channels, Patagucci fans will be forced to buy from the official website or the few Patagonia stores in Sydney and Melbourne (and keep margins high). Consumers who are annoyed by this will be guilted into thinking "those wholesalers and retailers are carbon assholes anyway".

 

[jt10000]

Patagucci.

Alright.

 

[ejj]

I think you are are trying to put secret motivations here that don't really exist. Patagonia has a history of doing whatever they can to make positive changes with environmental issues and businesses associated with them in any way. In fact, they have a history of making bad-business choices. i.e. "Who cares if it costs more or we make less money..."

 

[James]

Omg, we’re all going to die.

 

[cantunamunch]

Omg, we’re all going to die.

Does one spec a renewable energy oven?

 

[James]

Does one spec a renewable energy oven?

Composting coffin.

 

[cantunamunch]

Composting coffin.

But requires low salt pasta for decades. *puke smiley*

Groundsure - Home

Empowering Sustainable Land and Property Decisions through our wide range of environmental reports and land use data.

www.groundsure.com

 

[jt10000]

I think you are are trying to put secret motivations here that don't really exist.

And perhaps discredit the very idea that businesses (or even people in general) should be taking action on climate change at all.

 

[jt10000]

Omg, we’re all going to die.

Not all, but some.

A recently published study in peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications found that climate change would cause 83 million excess deaths by 2100. The study coins the term "mortality cost of carbon" to describe how many future lives will be lost—or saved—depending on whether we increase or decrease our current carbon emissions.

From https://www.forbes.com/sites/dishas...illion-excess-deaths-by-2100/?sh=621acc2545c4

 

[fatbob]

Patagucci have a track record of doing WTF they want. If you don't like the direction then don't buy their stuff and double down on someone not making environmental claims.

I'm as cynical as the next person ( really moi?) about greenwashing in consumer goods given that their entire business model depends on selling us new stuff but Patagucci do at least seem to walk the walk insofar as it is possible given the huge underlying constraint.

 

[nemesis256]

And perhaps discredit the very idea that businesses (or even people in general) should be taking action on climate change at all.

I assume you're saying it should be up to the governments. Definitely would have much more impact.

 

[cantunamunch]

I assume you're saying it should be up to the governments. Definitely would have much more impact.

It would have significantly more impact if we finally acknowledge the elephant in the room - capitalism on its own will never solve the problem.

But I don't read jt10K 's post as saying that at all. All @jt10000 s post refers to is the intent of the article in the OP and he suspects it of having the unacknowledged intent of keeping business out of eco issues.

 

[Rich_Ease_3051]

I think you are are trying to put secret motivations here that don't really exist. Patagonia has a history of doing whatever they can to make positive changes with environmental issues and businesses associated with them in any way. In fact, they have a history of making bad-business choices. i.e. "Who cares if it costs more or we make less money..."

If this were true they would apply the threat to all their markets, especially the US.

US wholesalers are arguably the biggest fossil fuel burners out of all Patagucci wholesalers. They import more Pataguccis from half way around the word for the voracious American buyer. That's a lot of carbon produced.

But alas, they didn't threaten US wholesalers. Only piddly wholesalers from insignificant markets like Australia and New Zealand:

Patagonia links discounts to carbon footprint

Patagonia to link discounts to carbon footprint

www.ecotextile.com

That's because they will lose a lot of money if they threaten US wholesalers.

 

[cantunamunch]

If this were true they would apply the threat to all their markets, especially the US.

US wholesalers are arguably the biggest carbon burners out of all Patagucci wholesalers. They import more Pataguccis from half way around the word for the voracious American buyer. That's a lot of carbon burned.

But alas, they didn't threaten US wholesalers. Only piddly wholesalers from insignificant markets like Australia and New Zealand:

Patagonia links discounts to carbon footprint

Patagonia to link discounts to carbon footprint

www.ecotextile.com

That's because they will lose a lot of money if they threaten US wholesalers.

Just stop. OK? Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Scope 3 is part of US EPA guidelines and isn't something Patagonia invented.

Scope 3 Inventory Guidance | US EPA

This page provides a description of scope 3 emissions, resources on scope 3 emissions, and scope 3 emissions factors

www.epa.gov

Patagonia's only problem, therefore, is that they actually choose to have official distribution channels in Aus and NZ. Fine, they can fix that. Have fun self-sourcing.

You can also just stop the downright idiotic 'half way around the world' carbon mythology.

Basic fact for you: Ships are 10 times more carbon-efficient per unit weight than trucks. That means that shipping something from NZ to the port of LA is actually a lower carbon footprint than truck shipping it from the port of LA to Denver, Colorado.

You're right in one thing: The US market is a lot bigger than either the Aus or NZ markets.

For Patagonia this means one thing: If, as a result, they can put an EPA GHG sticker on their US operation, they will definitely at least consider dropping the AUS or NZ markets.

 

[Rich_Ease_3051]

Just stop. OK? Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Scope 3 is part of US EPA guidelines and isn't something Patagonia invented.

Scope 3 Inventory Guidance | US EPA

This page provides a description of scope 3 emissions, resources on scope 3 emissions, and scope 3 emissions factors

www.epa.gov

Patagonia's only problem, therefore, is that they actually choose to have official distribution channels in Aus and NZ. Fine, they can fix that. Have fun self-sourcing.

You can also just stop the downright idiotic 'half way around the world' carbon mythology.

Basic fact for you: Ships are 10 times more carbon-efficient per unit weight than trucks. That means that shipping something from NZ to the port of LA is actually a lower carbon footprint than truck shipping it from the port of LA to Denver, Colorado.

You're right in one thing: The US market is a lot bigger than either the Aus or NZ markets.

For Patagonia this means one thing: If, as a result, they can put an EPA GHG sticker on their US operation, they will definitely at least consider dropping the AUS or NZ markets.

Your links and assertions don't prove Patagonia's true intent with this discount-threat-tied-to-carbon, sadly.

 

[LuliTheYounger]

Anyone who got into business with Patagonia and is surprised by this kind of thing is dumb as rocks, honestly. This is what Patagonia is built on & they've never been shy about enforcing it.

 

[jt10000]

Your links and assertions don't prove Patagonia's true intent with this discount-threat-tied-to-carbon, sadly.

Don't prove "true intent" LOL.

As far as I can tell, you think a company talking about fighting climate change is inherently BS (or want us to think that about those efforts), so “¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Rich_Ease_3051]

Don't prove "true intent" LOL.

As far as I can tell, you think a company talking about fighting climate change is inherently BS (or want us to think that about those efforts), so “¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's certainly possible that they believe their own hype. And the opposite is possible as well. If it was the latter, they wouldn't be the first company to greenwash to increase sales and mindshare among the "environmentally focused consumer" (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

One thing I'm certain of is there's a limit to sacrificing profitability for environmental concerns. I know this to be a fact because they can score the most carbon points if they just ditch the whole ski lineup. Skiing is arguably the most carbon producing sport in their whole lineup. But they won't do that. Nor would they antagonise wholesale partners in the biggest consumer market in the world.

Come to think of it, all sports create carbon to a degree. If they can really "afford" to sacrifice profits, just fold the whole fucking business already and tell people to stop going to far away places in the mountains and beaches and lakes and rivers to get their exercise and hobby and spiritual fix. Just tell people to stay at home and exercise around the neighborhood. That'll save a lot of carbon.

 

[jt10000]

One thing I'm certain of is there's a limit to sacrificing profitability for environmental concerns.

So now the problem is not going far enough. Is that it? Or because they don't go all the way, they're hypocrites and should just stop.

Cool story bro.

 

[Rich_Ease_3051]

So now the problem is not going far enough. Is that it? Or because they don't go all the way, they're hypocrites and should just stop.

Cool story bro.

I mean they could have offered more discounts to wholesale partners IF the latter agree to participate in environmental charities or carbon reduction initiatives.

But them threatening to withhold discounts if they don't do A, B, C, and D in Patagonia's plan to save the planet, just sets off my bullshitometre.